On 6/16/20 11:45 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:52:01 -0400
> Chas Williams <3ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/20 7:48 AM, Jay Rolette wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger <
>> > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am distu
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:52:01 -0400
Chas Williams <3ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/20 7:48 AM, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger <
> > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet
On 6/16/20 7:48 AM, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger <
> step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
>> I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet
bonding.
>> Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed
>> "upstream
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger <
step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet bonding.
> Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed
> "upstream".
>
> The proper terminology is for Ethernet link ag
On 6/15/20 6:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet
bonding.
> Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed
"upstream".
>
> The proper terminology is for Ethernet link aggregation in the
> the current standard
I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet bonding.
Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed "upstream".
The proper terminology is for Ethernet link aggregation in the
the current standard 802.1AX 2020 revision (pay walled) for the parts
formerly k
6 matches
Mail list logo
